Key informants raised the concept and tool of integrated land use planning frequently. Environmental programs can have a greater impact when awareness of wildlife habitat and corridors, intensive and extensive agricultural use, forests, watershed protection, etc. are assessed in a holistic manner by stakeholders. Additionally, this approach can facilitate integration of work between Ministries for each sector, including environment, agriculture, economic development, and social issues, which can have a positive impact on program results.
Documenting linkages between sectors, particularly economic development and natural resource degradation.
USAID guidance notes that where factors such as rapid environmental degradation (1 percent/year or more), severe economic loss (5 percent of GDP), or severe environmental health risk are present, USAID "will give serious consideration to programmatic interventions that seek to address their root causes." (ADS 201, Technical Annex B, 1995.) Where these factors are not measured and "data is limited, missions, with support from G/ENV, should seek to work with host country counterparts and other donors to strengthen empirical understanding of these factors through strategically targeted research." Kamweti (2000) notes that "it should be highlighted that case studies on economic importance of catchment of natural vegetation, by economists, sociologists, foresters and wildlife specialists have not been undertaken and it may be necessary to avoid prodding in [the] dark when discussing conservation issues with politicians and policy makers."
Efforts were made to find studies that would help to illuminate these links, but the consensus was that few exist and therefore more such research needs to be done. Links between environmental degradation and human health are also not clear for the Kenyan context.
Supporting systemic change in Kenya.
No one agency can usually accomplish major shifts in policy or societal attitudes. However the "enabling conditions" required to allow more specific interventions to occur are well documented as a necessity for turning the tide. In Kenya, population pressures, poverty, political logjams, mismanaged public sector resources, and inadequately documented degradation trends or other research are the most commonly referenced constraints.
6.2. Wildlife and terrestrial biodiversity resources
Building on community-based wildlife and other natural resource management.
Building on COBRA and other community-based programs, through strategies that allow communities to see the benefits of wildlife and other non-farm land uses, is vital. For example, ecotourism, wildlife cropping, small-scale NR-based enterprise development, and other “alternative” strategies that directly link protection and income have been important to changing attitudes of communities near protected areas.
This sector is where USAID/Kenya's recent experience and thus also, to a great extent, its comparative advantage lie.
Linking biodiversity to other sectors.
Biodiversity conservation is documented to be more successful when practiced in the context of other factors. USAID and other donors are addressing economic need through CBWM programs, but few programs link health, education, culture, and other human elements into their work. In a recent study done by USAID's Biodiversity Support Program, which examined 20 integrated conservation and development projects, and the conservation impact their implementing organizations made, development organizations tended to have a more positive impact than conservation organizations, when leading project alliances. Perhaps this was due to development organizations' greater focus on solving the needs of humans, whence come threats to biodiversity and other resources.
6.3. Freshwater and coastal resources.
Kara PagePage 3110/23/2006